FEMA

[GGT]

Acronym. FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Rather a repeat on emergency services and disaster planning (since threads post-Katrina).

But this time, during a US election cycle, there are politicians claiming any/everything from FEMA being our worst enemy (Ron Paul says FEMA taught dependence and learned helplessness), to those saying disaster relief should be off-set by other cost containment social/welfare spending (Ryan, Cantor), and even staunch republicans espousing the value and importance of federal disaster relief (Christie, Perry)

Perry only admitted that as Sec of Ag for Texas, and as Governor, while asking for federal funds. But as a candidate for POTUS...not so much.

Anyway, what are YOUR views about emergency management and/or disaster relief? Is it something each state should be responsible for, on their own, and not expect help from the other 49 states?

Yeah, it's a politically charged question.

[Ominous Gamer]

Emergency Management for natural disasters simply isn't something that can and should be left up to individual states. Especially in our current times. Just read an article talking about how one of the states is having to borrow helicopters from neighboring states because all their helicopters are with the National Guard over seas.

[agamemnus]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

[CitizenCain]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

Almost. It's a problem because, apparently, we have to impose government assistance on everyone, which means interfering in everyone's personal decisions, particularly when people would like to choose a more expensive option, like living in an area prone to natural disasters.

[earthJoker]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

Didn't we just had an earthquake at the east coast and a tropical storm flooding Vermont? I agree that you shouldn't encourage builders to build at risky places, but that doesn't mean that there won't still be victims of natural disasters.

[agamemnus]

You mean won't?

[earthJoker]

Yeah, sorry. Corrected.

[agamemnus]

Yeah, so the issue is still there. At what point do you say "sorry, you're just out of luck but we won't give you money to rebuild"?

If you're a lender and you are insured by the FDIC, the government will typically force your borrowers to have federal flood insurance if they think you're in a flood-prone zone.

Our house requires flood insurance for the mortgage even though we are about 12 feet off on a hill, and there would need to be a flood as bad as the New Orleans one for us (minus the basement) to actually get flooded. The federal government is really terrible at designating flood zones, apparently.

There are two problems, currently, I think. Firstly there's the problem that the government can't correctly price flood insurance. The smaller problem, by scale, is that some people have the option not to have it (non-FDIC insured lenders or they paid off their mortgage), and the government bails them out anyway.

So, do you just get rid of federal flood insurance? It seems private companies don't want to be involved in flood insurance, but perhaps only because the federal government is monopolizing it.

If you get rid of federal flood insurance, you'd have to get rid of the flood insurance requirement or I think there would be price gouging. You could then regulate the private industries, I suppose, to prevent price gouging?

Or, of course, the government could stop requiring flood insurance from the FDIC-insured banks..

[GGT]

Which area of the US doesn't have disasters? Does it matter if they're "natural" or man-made?

Like EJ said, the east coast had an earthquake, and land-locked Vermont was flooded after a hurricane. Last spring all that mountain snow flooded several Mississippi River states. Tornadoes don't just happen in Kansas or Oklahoma, either. Texas is still battling huge fires. NO state can afford the tab for emergency rescue operations, let alone relocating people or rebuilding roads/structures.

Hell, our states can't even afford to upgrade or maintain the bridges, train tracks, or interstate highways....disaster or not.

[agamemnus]

It's a question of frequency... Kansas IS known for tornadoes, you know, and Texas is known as a hot and dry place.. the government shouldn't encourage people building in dangerous areas because that makes it more expensive for everyone else...

[earthJoker]

There are some natural disasters which occur frequently, like bush fires in dry places, or tornados/hurricanes. But that are also the kind of disasters that only happen once in centuries but have very devastating effects. You simply can't use your logic for "encourage" people to live at the right place for both kinds of disasters.

If your government really suck at city planning, maybe that would be the right choice to start a change.

[GGT]

There are some natural disasters which occur frequently, like bush fires in dry places, or tornados/hurricanes. But that are also the kind of disasters that only happen once in centuries but have very devastating effects. You simply can't use your logic for "encourage" people to live at the right place for both kinds of disasters.

If your government really suck at city planning, maybe that would be the right choice to start a change.

True. Texas is a red state, with a governor and legislature loath to "tell people what to do". I was shocked to hear a spokesperson for firefighters say there are still Texans using BBQ grills, around all that dry brush and trees that are like tinder, and asking people to be "more cautious". I'd have thought a ban on outdoor burning and water restrictions during drought would have been enacted long ago.

As for FEMA, Gov. Perry needs the federal assistance to get the inferno under control, then help with recovery and clean-up costs. Doubt he'll eat his words promising "to make the federal government as inconsequential in your lives as possible", though. For politicians who wants more state-control than federal involvement, they should be asked whether their city planning/zoning ordinances and local laws were sufficient....or if they even existed.

[agamemnus]

Doubt he'll eat his words promising "to make the federal government as inconsequential in your lives as possible", though.

Interesting. If he actually said that, and people find out, he's going to lose almost every urban dweller in a general election.

[CitizenCain]

True. Texas is a red state, with a governor and legislature loath to "tell people what to do". I was shocked to hear a spokesperson for firefighters say there are still Texans using BBQ grills, around all that dry brush and trees that are like tinder, and asking people to be "more cautious". I'd have thought a ban on outdoor burning and water restrictions during drought would have been enacted long ago.

Because you think there's actually a risk of wildfires being caused by backyard grilling? There isn't even a risk of setting your own yard on fire with a backyard grill, never mind everyone else's.

Par for the course, though. GeeGee invents problem, expects government to have solved imaginary problem already, rants that government isn't doing anything about imaginary problem.

Besides, if we're going to be dealing with problems in Texas, the biggest problem is that the vast herds of unicorned albino armadillos that once covered the state thickly enough to make the state look like a glacier from space have been hunted to extinction in Texas, and the government isn't doing anything about it. They haven't even banned hunting endangered unicorned albino armadillos in neighboring states, or allocated any funds to reintroduce the unicorned albino armadillo into its natural Texan habitat.

And even if you don't care about mother Earth, the unicorned, albino armadillos once served an important role in stopping wildfires (as they are naturally flame retardant). But those crazy, gun toting Texan Wall Street Banker Madison Avenue Executive j00 Nazis had to hunt them to extinction in order to use their horns to rape gays... while drinking the blood of children and summoning Satan.

Why, oh why, didn't the government step in and ban those things sooner?!?!? If only you'd been around to demand the government outlaw gay rape and human sacrifices and setting the state of Texas on fire, we wouldn't have this mess where half the country is currently on fire, 7 out 10 gays in Texas is raped to death with extinct animal parts every day and 3.8 million children are sacrificed annually in attempts to summon Satan.

[GGT]

Because you think there's actually a risk of wildfires being caused by backyard grilling? There isn't even a risk of setting your own yard on fire with a backyard grill, never mind everyone else's.

Par for the course, though. GeeGee invents problem, expects government to have solved imaginary problem already, rants that government isn't doing anything about imaginary problem.

You're wrong about fire. It's a documented fact that "most fires are caused by reckless human behavior". Whether it's too many extension cords under a live Christmas tree, a hot match at a campground, or stray embers from a backyard grill....fire spreads. Texas has been in drought status for about a year, with less than a couple inches of rainfall. Trees and shrubs may look green but they're ripe for tinder. Winds blow a spark from house to house, and can "jump" down the street.

I haven't invented one damn thing. Thousands of acres and hundreds of homes are burning through Texas, and it's 0% controlled. That's a real problem, and a big one. Local and state government could have/should have stepped into mandatory prevention/protection mode ages ago, limiting outdoor burning, indoor chimney or wood stove use, fireworks, BBQ grilling, using flammable liquids near dry grasses, etc. To limit risk and save lives....for the Greater Good.

I know you hate teh evil gummint for almost everything, but it does have a useful purpose.

[Enoch the Red]

I haven't invented one damn thing. Thousands of acres and hundreds of homes are burning through Texas, and it's 0% controlled. That's a real problem, and a big one. Local and state government could have/should have stepped into mandatory prevention/protection mode ages ago, limiting outdoor burning, indoor chimney or wood stove use, fireworks, BBQ grilling, using flammable liquids near dry grasses, etc. To limit risk and save lives....for the Greater Good.

"It's looking a lot better," said Palo County Sheriff Ira Mercer.

"We actually released some firefighters to go fight the Bastrop fire."
Mercer said all roadblocks have been lifted on public roads and local authorities have begun dealing with other issues they had set aside for the last week.

The Texas Forest Service said the Possum Kingdom fire, known as the 101 Ranch Fire, was 85 percent contained this morning and firefighting conditions had changed for the better during the last 24 hours as the winds have died down.

That's not to say every wildfire in Texas is at that level of containment, rather to point out that you are grossly Chicken Little-ing the situation. Easily 99.999% of backyard BBQ's are not going to start a Bastrop style wildfire. Should we ban car use in drought prone areas because it's conceivable a car backfire could start a wildfire?

[CitizenCain]

You're wrong about fire. It's a documented fact that "most fires are caused by reckless human behavior".

Where definitions of "documented fact" == what GeeGee pulls out of her ass.

And again, backyard grilling does not cause wildfires, so there's no need for you to have your precious guvmint ban it. Again, what you need to be doing is focusing on the plight of the unicorned albino armadillo, and how government inaction allowed them to be hunted to extinction, used as a weapon of sexual violence in gencoiding the gayosexuals, and directly contributed to sacrificing millions of children to Lucifer every year. do something about THAT.

Banning grilling as solution to wildfires makes about as much sense as banning telephones to combat email spam.

Chicken Little

Let's stop bashing Chicken Little, eh? Chickens are delicious and amusing (watching the headless ones run around is amusing, at least), not to mention GeeGee makes Chicken Little look like the voice of reason. The delicious, amusing voice of reason....

[GGT]

“I’ll promise you this,” Perry said. “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1XBy8hBp3

[Nessus]

Was he like this back in 2005 or whatever? Although I guess I would've found that funny then

Hell, I guess it's funny now

[Loki]

I think the only solution to this is to ban everyone from ever leaving their house.

[Nessus]

I think the only solution to this is to ban everyone from ever leaving their house.

With your incarceration rate, it's only a matter of time!

Wait, that's not really funny, is it?

[GGT]

Okay, sure, go ahead and let people start charcoal grills in dry crispy areas, during long droughts. Let any Larry, Curly or Moe set off fireworks, or build a campfire in the woods. Theoretically none of that should start a fire that spreads, let alone a statewide wildfire. Everyone tends to think fire containment is something controllable at their own hands, with a hose or fire extinguisher, or just a 911 phone call away. Well guess what, that's not the reality of Fire or how Fire works.


Besides, what's that got to do with what to do with Texas being on fire, or needing federal assistance?

[CitizenCain]

Besides, what's that got to do with what to do with Texas being on fire, or needing federal assistance?

And what the fuck does grilling have to do with Texas being on fire? NOTHING.

If someone starts a large fire that consumes Texas, what should be done with that someone?

Putting him in one of those big buckets the helicopters scoop up lake water with appeals to my sense of justice. If he survives the fall, and the fire he started, it's clearly God's will, and if he doesn't, he died trying to fix his mistake. Win-win.

That's silly; of course it will. 1000-1 is always going to be 999, never 1000...

And we're back to banning cars, electricity and all heat sources, to prevent wildfires. Which, technologically speaking, would put us behind the stone age, because even stone age man had figured out how to start and use fires.

Huh. Wish I had the power to make Luddites look like far off sci-fi figures pushing the cutting edges of science.

Oh, for fuck's sake. The Great Chicago Fire was started either by a person or a bovine,

OH MY GOD, TEH COWS ARE BURNING TEXAS!!!!!!!!!! BAN ALL BOVINES, BEFORE THE FIRE CLAIMS US ALL!!!!!!11

[Catgrrl]

Putting him in one of those big buckets the helicopters scoop up lake water with appeals to my sense of justice. If he survives the fall, and the fire he started, it's clearly God's will, and if he doesn't, he died trying to fix his mistake. Win-win.

This sounds like an appropriate plan of action to me

[Aimless]

If someone starts a large fire that consumes Texas, what should be done with that someone?

Other than awarding mefalls I mean.

[GGT]

Oh, for fuck's sake. The Great Chicago Fire was started either by a person or a bovine, or maybe hay and a flammable liquid, but all had human impetus. Fire, itself, didn't care who started it. It just followed its nature, which is to jump and spread, using winds and tiny parts of its whole, until it finds a barricade or distinguishing element.

Who the hell wants to rely on natural barricades or rainfall, when it comes to saving towns, cities, properties, and human LIVES?

Some of y'all just want to get rid of fire departments and fire marshals as prevention activists? Forestry departments and civil engineers that aid emergency responders from having to respond in the first place? Zoning ordinances for shared walls/attics and fire walls? Temporary bans on outdoor burning during severe and prolonged droughts? Really? Really?

[GGT]

Stop being such an asshole, Cain. Right now it doesn't matter how the Texas fires were started, or by whom. The only fact that matters right now is how to put all the fires out, and gain 100% control of the situation. Do you think Texas can do that on its own, or do they need federal assistance?

[CitizenCain]

Stop being such an asshole, Cain. Right now it doesn't matter how the Texas fires were started, or by whom. The only fact that matters right now is ...

That we indulge your bitching about how backyard grilling caused this wildfire? I mean, wildfires in general. Er, some wildfires, somewhere. Well, theoretically, the possibility of starting a wildfire. Actually, it doesn't matter. But that's why we must ban all technology developed during and after the stone age, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-government lunatic who doesn't understand the puppy-kicking, Satan-worshiping, kid-raping nature of "FIRE."

[GGT]

That we indulge your bitching about how backyard grilling caused this wildfire? I mean, wildfires in general. Er, some wildfires, somewhere. Well, theoretically, the possibility of starting a wildfire. Actually, it doesn't matter. But that's why we must ban all technology developed during and after the stone age, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-government lunatic who doesn't understand the puppy-kicking, Satan-worshiping, kid-raping nature of "FIRE."

This post only shows you can't or won't organize and assimilate public policy when it matters most.

Fire has been around since the stone age, but that doesn't mean we have to act as if stone age principles still prevail. We're supposedly smart enough, and evolved enough, to know that Fire can still spread and kill. Even in the 21st century.

Call me a bitch all you want. Twist my posts all you want. Fight fire on your own, if being on your own is really what matters most to you, above all else. I'd lay odds in favor of fire as the more powerful force.

Fire is nothing to be messed with, or underestimated. Fire spreads, destroys, and kills. Far be it for you to "indulge" in the mindset that a force as powerful as Fire is stronger than you.

[Enoch the Red]

At least one of the fires in Texas is thought to have been caused by arson.

Back yard grilling is safe... for now.